National Politics 🔴 The Labour Party

[West Oxon U’s]

 

[Sheik Djibouti]

The one that a simple majority won you mean?

And lets not forget the years of vacuous appeals and legal shenanigans by those who came second/lost/didn`t like the result.

Bit better than a government elected by a lower vote share (34%) than any party forming a post–war majority government. **


**Proper PR has to be the next logical step or we are fudged

 

[boogaloo]

What the hell are the Torygraph on about 'Starmer defies Trump over Greenland threat'? We are not the 51st state of America (although Farage could change that), and we are perfectly allowed to forge our own opinions of the Mango Mussolini. Trump is acting less of an ally than Denmark these days, so he can go and f**k himself.

Starmer defies Trump over Greenland threat

Sir Keir Starmer has defied Donald Trump by declaring that he “stands” with Denmark after the US president threatened to annex Greenland.

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[Essexyellows]

What the hell are the Torygraph on about 'Starmer defies Trump over Greenland threat'? We are not the 51st state of America (although Farage could change that), and we are perfectly allowed to forge our own opinions of the Mango Mussolini. Trump is acting less of an ally than Denmark these days, so he can go and f**k himself.

Starmer defies Trump over Greenland threat

Sir Keir Starmer has defied Donald Trump by declaring that he “stands” with Denmark after the US president threatened to annex Greenland.

uk.news.yahoo.com

He`s trying to make himself sound significant............. which he isn`t.

 

[Sheik Djibouti]

He`s trying to make himself sound significant............. which he isn`t.

Eh?

You're losing it

He was asked the question and answered in the only sane way possible...ie that Trump is a fucking lunatic.

Not sure how that is trying make himself sound significant, but when you've got a bad case of Starmer Derangement Syndrome, it's easy to see why one might think that way

 

[Essexyellows]

Eh?

You're losing it

He was asked the question and answered in the only sane way possible...ie that Trump is a fucking lunatic.

Not sure how that is trying make himself sound significant, but when you've got a bad case of Starmer Derangement Syndrome, it's easy to see why one might think that way

He didn`t say anything as strong except lots of "Stand with" etc etc. Its the new "shoulder to shoulder".

He won`t even say if entering a country by force and arresting its leader is "illegal under international law"....

Starmer won't be drawn on whether US strikes on Venezuela broke international law

The PM told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg that he won't "shy away from this" but added we "haven't got the full picture at the moment".

www.bbc.co.uk

He must have lots of splinters in his backside from sitting on the fence(s).

 

[Essexyellows]

"A combination of very weak consumer confidence, highly adverse government fiscal policies and continued cost inflation is causing many established and much-loved businesses to suffer badly,"

Claire's and The Original Factory Shop enter administration

The firms' owner said "alarming" low Christmas trading left both in a "vulnerable" position

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Sheik Djibouti]

"A combination of very weak consumer confidence, highly adverse government fiscal policies and continued cost inflation is causing many established and much-loved businesses to suffer badly,"

Claire's and The Original Factory Shop enter administration

The firms' owner said "alarming" low Christmas trading left both in a "vulnerable" position

www.bbc.co.uk

Or they sell cheap tat from China that nobody wants

Thought you'd be pleased consumers are turning their back on them.

 

[chuckbert]

Or they sell cheap tat from China that nobody wants

I must admit that was my first thought.

 

[QR]

"A combination of very weak consumer confidence, highly adverse government fiscal policies and continued cost inflation is causing many established and much-loved businesses to suffer badly,"

Claire's and The Original Factory Shop enter administration

The firms' owner said "alarming" low Christmas trading left both in a "vulnerable" position

www.bbc.co.uk

How the journalist managed to write that article without mentioning Shein is beyond me.

 

[West Oxon U’s]

Starmer telling yet more lies:

 

[SteMerritt]

Starmer telling yet more lies:

Isn't this a complete non-story? I don't use X, but isn't a 'community note' something that pretty much anyone can apply to add? It's not a neutral notice is it?

As for the actual message, calling it a 'lie' is a stretch to say the least. The community note itself was just pointing out that prices will remain more expensive than when they came to power. How much beyond the rate of inflation for that period isn't mentioned, that would have given context.

This, once again, is just hyperbole. Discuss the rising energy costs, and boy am I noticing them at the moment, but shouting 'Lie', 'Liar', 'Lying' is just pathetic really.

 

[Scotchegg]

Isn't this a complete non-story? I don't use X, but isn't a 'community note' something that pretty much anyone can apply to add? It's not a neutral notice is it?

As for the actual message, calling it a 'lie' is a stretch to say the least. The community note itself was just pointing out that prices will remain more expensive than when they came to power. How much beyond the rate of inflation for that period isn't mentioned, that would have given context.

This, once again, is just hyperbole. Discuss the rising energy costs, and boy am I noticing them at the moment, but shouting 'Lie', 'Liar', 'Lying' is just pathetic really.

After my self imposed absence from the forum, I was determined to avoid engaging with all political threads. There "Rage Baiting" and distasteful comments from some do the wider forum no favours and hinder what could be interesting debates on all sides. There are some posters I disagree with but do find their views interesting and thought provoking. Others less so.

Amongst all of this nonsense, I genuinely appreciate that Ste desperately tries to be our very own "Community Note" and calls out the most extreme posts. I just wish that those who are the worst offenders at posting these would do a little self reflection first and maybe we could then return to health debates on matters of interest to so many.

But until then, I remain out.

 

[Carpy]

Isn't this a complete non-story? I don't use X, but isn't a 'community note' something that pretty much anyone can apply to add? It's not a neutral notice is it?

As for the actual message, calling it a 'lie' is a stretch to say the least. The community note itself was just pointing out that prices will remain more expensive than when they came to power. How much beyond the rate of inflation for that period isn't mentioned, that would have given context.

This, once again, is just hyperbole. Discuss the rising energy costs, and boy am I noticing them at the moment, but shouting 'Lie', 'Liar', 'Lying' is just pathetic really.

The community note is correct though, even if it didn't mention inflation, the accompanying X post is trash for sure, but even with inflation, the price cap is £271 higher than it should be, not £150 lower.

It would need to be £1,487 for them to have taken £150 (£157 inflation adjusted) off peoples bills based on the price cap when they came into office + inflation.

Kier Starmer is spouting a nonsense phrase that he hasn't delivered, so it is a lie.

 

[SteMerritt]

The community note is correct though, even if it didn't mention inflation, the accompanying X post is trash for sure, but even with inflation, the price cap is £271 higher than it should be, not £150 lower.

It would need to be £1,487 for them to have taken £150 (£157 inflation adjusted) off peoples bills based on the price cap when they came into office + inflation.

I read the Starmer post as being £150 being removed from now for 2026 - which always happens when we move into warmer times anyway, before being raised again the next winter. The community note for me gave some useful background, but is certainly isn't a 'gotcha' that the post itself tried to make it out to be.

I'd also say that stating that they wanted to take £300 off people's bills and failing to do it isn't in fact 'a lie', it's more showing that their policies were either overly-optimistic, or simply not good enough. That's what I think the critics should be hammering them on.

 

[Carpy]

I read the Starmer post as being £150 being removed from now for 2026 - which always happens when we move into warmer times anyway, before being raised again the next winter. The community note for me gave some useful background, but is certainly isn't a 'gotcha' that the post itself tried to make it out to be.

I'd also say that stating that they wanted to take £300 off people's bills and failing to do it isn't in fact 'a lie', it's more showing that their policies were either overly-optimistic, or simply not good enough. That's what I think the critics should be hammering them on.

It stops being a grey area once policies are clearly pushing bills in the opposite direction of what was promised. A pledge can survive bad luck or changing circumstances, but it cannot survive deliberate choices that make it impossible to deliver. So ultimately, it's a lie because they know they're not doing anything to deliver on it.

They could have de-coupled pricing from gas, they could have removed green levies, they could have funded network costs through general taxation, they could have done any number of things to reduce bills, but they haven't through choice.

 

[SteMerritt]

It stops being a grey area once policies are clearly pushing bills in the opposite direction of what was promised. A pledge can survive bad luck or changing circumstances, but it cannot survive deliberate choices that make it impossible to deliver. So ultimately, it's a lie because they know they're not doing anything to deliver on it.

They could have de-coupled pricing from gas, they could have removed green levies, they could have funded network costs through general taxation, they could have done any number of things to reduce bills, but they haven't through choice.

Once again, I'd say that's not a lie. They had ambition to do it, but have been found lacking when trying to actually implement changes. This is where the critic's attacks should be. Why did they make the original statement? Was it because they had a poor understanding of the situation? People involved didn't have the skills to deliver? Did other priorities negate the original aim?

To call it a lie is to say it was a willful decision to deliberately mislead, and that is simplifying things down way too much.

 

[boogaloo]

I read the Starmer post as being £150 being removed from now for 2026 - which always happens when we move into warmer times anyway, before being raised again the next winter. The community note for me gave some useful background, but is certainly isn't a 'gotcha' that the post itself tried to make it out to be.

I'd also say that stating that they wanted to take £300 off people's bills and failing to do it isn't in fact 'a lie', it's more showing that their policies were either overly-optimistic, or simply not good enough. That's what I think the critics should be hammering them on.

Or it could be because we're still only in 2026. Labour said they would get energy prices down by £300 by 2030, and they still could if they get things going with renewables, and get GB Energy fully up and running.

Of course there will be a General Election a year earlier in 2029, and if the energy cap hasn't reduced by then, then it is fair to haul them over the coals - but not yet.

 

[Carpy]

GB Energy

If you think an energy company that doesn't produce or sell energy and hasn't done much in the way of investing is going to reduce bills than I have @tonyw's bridge to sell you

 

[Carpy]

Once again, I'd say that's not a lie. They had ambition to do it, but have been found lacking when trying to actually implement changes. This is where the critic's attacks should be. Why did they make the original statement? Was it because they had a poor understanding of the situation? People involved didn't have the skills to deliver? Did other priorities negate the original aim?

To call it a lie is to say it was a willful decision to deliberately mislead, and that is simplifying things down way too much.

We'll agree to disagree on this one, the pledge could have been met by now, their political choices mean it isn't.

 

[chuckbert]

If you think an energy company that doesn't produce or sell energy and hasn't done much in the way of investing is going to reduce bills than I have @tonyw's bridge to sell you

From what I can see it was 300 by 2030. So that surely can’t be a “lie” yet.

 

[Essexyellows]

Don`t worry SKS is "bringing down the cost of living" and putting more "money in your pocket".

"Sir Keir argued the government's policies were already paying off, with increases in the minimum wage, the Bank of England's reductions in interest rates, and help with household energy bills.".........

Anyone benefiting from any of that? If so by how much?

Meanwhile Nige lives rent free in Starmers head...........

Target 'divisive' Reform in 2026, Keir Starmer tells ministers

The PM says Labour needs to contrast its "renewal" of the country with Reform's "grievance and division".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Carpy]

We've got a few of the 11% on here

 

[Basham Wonderland]

We've got a few of the 11% on here

Quite an achievement, given how rare they are.

 

[Essexyellows]

Quite an achievement, given how rare they are.

The rarest of the rare - those who admit voting for the current show, and still believe that they will deliver #change #smashthegangs and make us all "better off".

 

[Sheik Djibouti]

The rarest of the rare - those who admit voting for the current show, and still believe that they will deliver #change #smashthegangs and make us all "better off".

Not sure you're really in a position to lecture anyone, given the 14 year shitshow you enabled and heartily backed ad infinitum on here (until you became a parody of yourself, that is).

Coupled with being so gullible as to believe Farage, Gove and Bojo that they could make you better off and lower immigration and give you back sovrintee

Never mind...now the Tories are in their death throes, I'm sure you can migrate to the TemuTories along with the rest of them...just follow the pied piper of Clacton.

PS - @Carpy has got a bridge for sale which you'll no doubt be interested in

 

[Essexyellows]

Not sure you're really in a position to lecture anyone, given the 14 year shitshow you enabled and heartily backed ad infinitum on here (until you became a parody of yourself, that is).

Coupled with being so gullible as to believe Farage, Gove and Bojo that they could make you better off and lower immigration and give you back sovrintee

Never mind...now the Tories are in their death throes, I'm sure you can migrate to the TemuTories along with the rest of them...just follow the pied piper of Clacton.

PS - @Carpy has got a bridge for sale which you'll no doubt be interested in

The Conservatives did make me (a lot) better off thank you.

Obviously it was less good for others, but that is life.

We still have a Conservative MP so at that level there is still someone to vote for.

The lower level local picture is different, we`ve had our locals already.

When the rest of the country delivers its verdict the "Red Tie Tories" will be in similar tailspin.

 

[Essexyellows]

Whoops they did it again.....................

Government to water down business rate rise for pubs

The hospitality industry had called for a rethink of planned changes to the way the tax based on property is calculated.

www.bbc.co.uk

Are they............

1. Listening to the people?
2. Incompetent
3. Clueless.
4. Trying to wing it and not get caught?

Almost losing track of all these U turns..

 

[Peterdev]

Whoops they did it again.....................

Government to water down business rate rise for pubs

The hospitality industry had called for a rethink of planned changes to the way the tax based on property is calculated.

www.bbc.co.uk

Are they............

1. Listening to the people?
2. Incompetent
3. Clueless.
4. Trying to wing it and not get caught?

Almost losing track of all these U turns..

Labour call it a reset. They should do the same with NI and protect young employment. Or is Starmer saving them for call up to Ukraine

 

[Essexyellows]

Labour call it a reset. They should do the same with NI and protect young employment. Or is Starmer saving them for call up to Ukraine

The same as lifting the child benefit cap to appeal to his core vote.............